For one reason or another most OS X users aren't terribly interested in Free Desktops. As for Solaris, Sun uses a non GPL compatible license (last I checked anyways). The GPL still is the free software license to be compatible with. Suns license seems to be on purpose non GPL compatible, as it is a similiar copy-left license. I think it scares off users and developers.
But as it is GNOME (Sun makes considerable work on GNOME) and KDE works just as good at least on Solaris so I don't know what this article is all about.
This isn't really about getting the picture back, but getting the data (in this case numbers) back. If there is a 4 number sequence you only have 10000 possibilities, On a face you would have billions of possibilities.
Rhode Island is also if I remember correctly the size of the ice block breaking of in "Day after tomorrow". Which is probably why it's used in this context.
I don't know if you have actually used Linux with Gnome (Or any other DE) but if you try it out you would notice that it isn't really like Windows. If there is one thing I hate it is overlapping Windows. The two most used program on my desktop have tabs (Browser and terminal). works way better than overlapping windows. I lay out my programs myself using virtual desktops and they pretty much stay that way until I reboot. In my book Windows doesn't work that way. Possibly can be made to work like that but it's not the default.
Windows and OS X has different kind of workarounds for what I see as a major problem, desktop clutter (Alt-tab, task-bars, exposé). In Linux and Gnome I don't find myself having the desktop cluttered and normally I don't need to use the taskbar or alt-tab even if they are there.
It's nice to see even the real desktop OSes is beginning to understand the need for virtual desktops, they do change your workflow but you need to be a little more carefull when laying out programs. In the end it works better than having everything on the same desktop.
While it won't solve your problem exactly there are gadgets with USB host features. My gmini 402 has USB host, mainly for connecting to digital cameras to get the pictures out. If the feature is important to you I guess you could research more before buying gadgets. For PDAs there are CF cards with USB host. Of course this isn't universal at all but it could let you do some of the stuff you need.
Bullshit, if there is a potential lock-in problem on what soon can be very expensive software it has to be taken into account. Will Opera continue to support this arch for free forever? If Opera software in the future decides to charge as little as $1 per browser it's 1% of the cost of the machine. Thats probably too much. With OSS you can be sure it will be supported. I don't know about the life expectancy of these computers but lets say it's probably a little longer than you average iPod, is it likekly Opera software want to support a browser they gave a way 15 years ago, who knows.
When my drives (7 of them) are filled up with movies I just mount them read only and have them power down after 20 minutes of inactivity. Most of the drives don't spin a single revolution in a day. Should keep them cool too. I have a 120GB drive which SMART reported being bad for years like this, don't keep my favorites on that one though.
A few sophisticated users have modified operation of existing operating systems, such as Mac OS X, to provide some portability to their user account from a work computer to a home computer. This requires specialized software tools to manipulate and modify the data structures for a user account in a database (e.g., netinfo database). Armed with such specialized tools, a very sophisticated user would first establish a local user account on the multi-user computer (work computer), and then use the specialized tools to edit the location of the default user directory, such that it is made to reside on an external storage device. Then, at the other location where a multi-user computer (home computer) is to be used by the same user, a user account would be again established on such a machine, and then using special tools to render the user identifier the same as that which the work computer used when creating the user account at the work computer.
So basically they say that prior art do exist. They even admit (in the fscking patent application!) "a few sophisticated users" have already done this, and now they want to steal that work and patent it. Isn't that great.
These modifications to the multi-user computers are not intended modifications and thus tend to compromise the reliability of the operation of the multi-user computers.
This would translate to "if something isn't invented by Apple it doesn't count as prior art".
Further, the required specialized tools, although available, are neither well documented nor user-friendly.
But they do exists, as you admit in your application. This looks like the kind of bullshit these companies puts in EULAs to make them stand up better against the laws, with the difference that this is a patent application and now it's used to stand up better to prior art.
Skype is a black hole. Sure I could open it up in my firewall but why would I? As I understand it skype could easily use a couple of gigs of bandwidth every month with no way to control it or even measure the usage. I could probably set up a couple of QOS rule to tame it down but that would take time, and the only benifit I would get is letting an unknown protocol connect to my home computer through a closed source app.
I'm also sick and tired of installing all these proprietary apps, each with it's own protocol and from the looks of it every couple of years there is the next big thing you need to install. Not because it's actully better but because someone you need to write/talk to has it. No thanks, we need something open and documented. Then every company could make their own client, brand it, sell it and popup commercials all day long as they wish. And I could use something smaller OSS that suits my needs.
And I would gladly contribute both bandwidth and cpu usage. But never for skype as it stands now.
The majority of people don't have DRM-laden music at all, yet most people have hundreds or thousands of songs. Mostly downloaded. Sure, there are a few who thinks that DRM-laden music at $.99 a piece is a bargain but I can't see how the market have spoken in favour of DRM when 99% of the music on peoples hardrives don't have DRM.
The place where anti-competitive practices occur is not at the distributor level
Apple has about 90% of the portable player market (in America), it's probably safe to asume they have about 90% of the market for music online also. Apple was able to strike a deal with the companies to sell music online for the iPod. No other company have been able to do that. Apple has unfair advantage because of DRM.
Remove DRM from the equation and there'd still be many of the same problems we see today, only with copyright law being used in the place of DRM, which is a whole different can of worms.
I would much rather have clear rules on what's legal than to sign a contract for every purchace i make, altough the signing part is of course not part of writing contracts anymore.
I don't thnk removing DRM would change the market in an instant (The media companies are having trouble adjusting to the internet), but as it is now it's so completely tied up from producers to distributors and consumers. I can not list one single market except the online music business where every single item they sell cost exactly the same. That's not a functional market.
No, by building a more transparent, vibrant and open market we are protecting the consumers (by not building monopolies). I couldn't care less how the market worked if it in the end was the best for the consumers.
I don't understand why the market has to be in such a lock-in when it comes to DRM media. As an example I fly RC helicopters and in that bussines everybody is copying everybody. I'm not even talking about lookalikes, I'm talking about verbatim copying of parts and even complete helicopters (The same also happens in the car industry). In the end I as a comsumer benifit from this because it gives me lower prices and a wider range of choice from parts, pricelevels and even which company to buy from.
When it comes to DRM media I should benifit of none of the powers of free trade because it doesn't exist there.
How about the privacy issues, You have to tell the company about every computer you want to play the media on. Even if you have bought the track 10 years ago.
The lock-in issues. It has been proven time and time again that DRM does little to protect the actual media, even in iTunes you can just burn it to a cd and re-rep it. Apple on the other hand makes lots and lots of cash from the ipod-itunes lock-in and they protect it using DRM (in the same way as HP tries to use DRM for their ink-cartridges). That makes the market non-funtional. It's much harder to enter the market because it's locked down using DRM. This will in the end creates monopolies and the consumer will not benifit from that. example: Real tried to enter the iPod tunes market and they got sued by Apple. They didn't got sued by the media companies, Real had a license to sell the media. In this case the DRM was used to protect the lock-in. If anybody defends this they should also defend the HP-ink lockin. Same thing. And to me it smells like a rotten Apple. It realy doesn't matter if the consumer cares about this issue or how clear it is explained to them when they buy the DRM media. It's not an issue for the consumer but for the industry.
Shitty contracts. Before the world of DRM we had laws which stated how you could use something you bought, this has now been downgraded to shitty contracts beetween the producer and the consumer. Most rights gets lost in those contracts like the rights of the first sale doctrine. These contracts can also change at will 10 years after purchase, and it's always the producer who chage the contract. Of course, if we can accept that when we buy something we get a floating (as in changleble) "use-case-contract" then it's allright.
No, i don't think everything about DRM is "clear as crystal" to the average consumer.
Then lets take an example, the never ending story of the Nvidia driver.
When I installed ubuntu I got the official nvidia driver installed for free. The official driver in Ubuntu is the xorg nv driver, it's pretty bad (no 3d) but does the job until we get the better driver installed. To install the driver sanctioned by Nvida I have to add unofficial repository to Ubuntu and install it from that (or download/install from the nvidia site).
The official driver in Ubuntu is still the xorg driver and the driver blessed by Nvidia is in Ubuntus case unofficial even if coded by Nvidia. In Ubuntu and most other Linux dists the driver coded by Nvidia would be considered the "third party addon".
I see it the other way around, if I had to install some "binary blob" from a vendor (such as Apples iTunes) I would call it a third party addon. Amarok ships with my distribution of choice (Ubuntu) and I don't consider standard software in Ubuntu "third party addons". After all an iPod is just another hardware device that needs a driver to function correctly.
By your reasoning almost every driver (except those programmed/blessed by the hardware vendor) in Linux would be considered "third party addons". I can't really follow that reasoning.
In summary, everything thats ships with my distribution is official programs no matter who coded it, if I have to download and install something not in the repositories I would call that a third party addon.
If I where to use Windows or MacOS I would probably not have this view on the matter though as there are no official repositories to download programs from. On Windows and MacOS your view is correct.
No, it's only a third party addon if it doesn't ship with your distribution. I don't know if iPod software ships in the standard dists since I don't own an iPod though.
Slashdot Mirror
no one except people like RMS give a shit about the license of software
Maybe you can explain why there are licenses on software if nobody except RMS cares about them?
For one reason or another most OS X users aren't terribly interested in Free Desktops. As for Solaris, Sun uses a non GPL compatible license (last I checked anyways). The GPL still is the free software license to be compatible with. Suns license seems to be on purpose non GPL compatible, as it is a similiar copy-left license. I think it scares off users and developers.
But as it is GNOME (Sun makes considerable work on GNOME) and KDE works just as good at least on Solaris so I don't know what this article is all about.
This isn't really about getting the picture back, but getting the data (in this case numbers) back. If there is a 4 number sequence you only have 10000 possibilities, On a face you would have billions of possibilities.
Rhode Island is also if I remember correctly the size of the ice block breaking of in "Day after tomorrow". Which is probably why it's used in this context.
I don't know if you have actually used Linux with Gnome (Or any other DE) but if you try it out you would notice that it isn't really like Windows. If there is one thing I hate it is overlapping Windows. The two most used program on my desktop have tabs (Browser and terminal). works way better than overlapping windows. I lay out my programs myself using virtual desktops and they pretty much stay that way until I reboot. In my book Windows doesn't work that way. Possibly can be made to work like that but it's not the default.
Windows and OS X has different kind of workarounds for what I see as a major problem, desktop clutter (Alt-tab, task-bars, exposé). In Linux and Gnome I don't find myself having the desktop cluttered and normally I don't need to use the taskbar or alt-tab even if they are there.
It's nice to see even the real desktop OSes is beginning to understand the need for virtual desktops, they do change your workflow but you need to be a little more carefull when laying out programs. In the end it works better than having everything on the same desktop.
While it won't solve your problem exactly there are gadgets with USB host features. My gmini 402 has USB host, mainly for connecting to digital cameras to get the pictures out. If the feature is important to you I guess you could research more before buying gadgets. For PDAs there are CF cards with USB host. Of course this isn't universal at all but it could let you do some of the stuff you need.
Bullshit, if there is a potential lock-in problem on what soon can be very expensive software it has to be taken into account. Will Opera continue to support this arch for free forever? If Opera software in the future decides to charge as little as $1 per browser it's 1% of the cost of the machine. Thats probably too much. With OSS you can be sure it will be supported. I don't know about the life expectancy of these computers but lets say it's probably a little longer than you average iPod, is it likekly Opera software want to support a browser they gave a way 15 years ago, who knows.
When my drives (7 of them) are filled up with movies I just mount them read only and have them power down after 20 minutes of inactivity. Most of the drives don't spin a single revolution in a day. Should keep them cool too. I have a 120GB drive which SMART reported being bad for years like this, don't keep my favorites on that one though.
Lets just hope they didn't invested in any Altivec code.
This is straight from the patent:
A few sophisticated users have modified operation of existing operating systems, such as Mac OS X, to provide some portability to their user account from a work computer to a home computer. This requires specialized software tools to manipulate and modify the data structures for a user account in a database (e.g., netinfo database). Armed with such specialized tools, a very sophisticated user would first establish a local user account on the multi-user computer (work computer), and then use the specialized tools to edit the location of the default user directory, such that it is made to reside on an external storage device. Then, at the other location where a multi-user computer (home computer) is to be used by the same user, a user account would be again established on such a machine, and then using special tools to render the user identifier the same as that which the work computer used when creating the user account at the work computer.
So basically they say that prior art do exist. They even admit (in the fscking patent application!) "a few sophisticated users" have already done this, and now they want to steal that work and patent it. Isn't that great.
These modifications to the multi-user computers are not intended modifications and thus tend to compromise the reliability of the operation of the multi-user computers.
This would translate to "if something isn't invented by Apple it doesn't count as prior art".
Further, the required specialized tools, although available, are neither well documented nor user-friendly.
But they do exists, as you admit in your application. This looks like the kind of bullshit these companies puts in EULAs to make them stand up better against the laws, with the difference that this is a patent application and now it's used to stand up better to prior art.
I don't know where you got the free from as I didn't mention it. Maybe you like making things up to make your nonsense argumentation hold water.
Skype is a black hole. Sure I could open it up in my firewall but why would I? As I understand it skype could easily use a couple of gigs of bandwidth every month with no way to control it or even measure the usage. I could probably set up a couple of QOS rule to tame it down but that would take time, and the only benifit I would get is letting an unknown protocol connect to my home computer through a closed source app.
I'm also sick and tired of installing all these proprietary apps, each with it's own protocol and from the looks of it every couple of years there is the next big thing you need to install. Not because it's actully better but because someone you need to write/talk to has it. No thanks, we need something open and documented. Then every company could make their own client, brand it, sell it and popup commercials all day long as they wish. And I could use something smaller OSS that suits my needs.
And I would gladly contribute both bandwidth and cpu usage. But never for skype as it stands now.
I'd like to see that article and have me a good laugh, yes I'm swedish.
It wouldn't be an economical monopoly though, as anybody can brand and sell the code.
The majority of people don't have DRM-laden music at all, yet most people have hundreds or thousands of songs. Mostly downloaded. Sure, there are a few who thinks that DRM-laden music at $.99 a piece is a bargain but I can't see how the market have spoken in favour of DRM when 99% of the music on peoples hardrives don't have DRM.
From what I understand (having trouble understanding the laymensterms of daily tabloids) it was also a completely open wifi network.
The place where anti-competitive practices occur is not at the distributor level
Apple has about 90% of the portable player market (in America), it's probably safe to asume they have about 90% of the market for music online also. Apple was able to strike a deal with the companies to sell music online for the iPod. No other company have been able to do that. Apple has unfair advantage because of DRM.
Remove DRM from the equation and there'd still be many of the same problems we see today, only with copyright law being used in the place of DRM, which is a whole different can of worms.
I would much rather have clear rules on what's legal than to sign a contract for every purchace i make, altough the signing part is of course not part of writing contracts anymore.
I don't thnk removing DRM would change the market in an instant (The media companies are having trouble adjusting to the internet), but as it is now it's so completely tied up from producers to distributors and consumers. I can not list one single market except the online music business where every single item they sell cost exactly the same. That's not a functional market.
No, by building a more transparent, vibrant and open market we are protecting the consumers (by not building monopolies). I couldn't care less how the market worked if it in the end was the best for the consumers.
I don't understand why the market has to be in such a lock-in when it comes to DRM media. As an example I fly RC helicopters and in that bussines everybody is copying everybody. I'm not even talking about lookalikes, I'm talking about verbatim copying of parts and even complete helicopters (The same also happens in the car industry). In the end I as a comsumer benifit from this because it gives me lower prices and a wider range of choice from parts, pricelevels and even which company to buy from.
When it comes to DRM media I should benifit of none of the powers of free trade because it doesn't exist there.
That would be very fair to say. Nice to see my point got through.
How about the privacy issues, You have to tell the company about every computer you want to play the media on. Even if you have bought the track 10 years ago.
The lock-in issues. It has been proven time and time again that DRM does little to protect the actual media, even in iTunes you can just burn it to a cd and re-rep it. Apple on the other hand makes lots and lots of cash from the ipod-itunes lock-in and they protect it using DRM (in the same way as HP tries to use DRM for their ink-cartridges). That makes the market non-funtional. It's much harder to enter the market because it's locked down using DRM. This will in the end creates monopolies and the consumer will not benifit from that. example: Real tried to enter the iPod tunes market and they got sued by Apple. They didn't got sued by the media companies, Real had a license to sell the media. In this case the DRM was used to protect the lock-in. If anybody defends this they should also defend the HP-ink lockin. Same thing. And to me it smells like a rotten Apple. It realy doesn't matter if the consumer cares about this issue or how clear it is explained to them when they buy the DRM media. It's not an issue for the consumer but for the industry.
Shitty contracts. Before the world of DRM we had laws which stated how you could use something you bought, this has now been downgraded to shitty contracts beetween the producer and the consumer. Most rights gets lost in those contracts like the rights of the first sale doctrine. These contracts can also change at will 10 years after purchase, and it's always the producer who chage the contract. Of course, if we can accept that when we buy something we get a floating (as in changleble) "use-case-contract" then it's allright.
No, i don't think everything about DRM is "clear as crystal" to the average consumer.
It has never been more clear to me that Stallman has zero perspective on the average working human being.
He is talking about the 1.000.000 angry penguins who just like to code in the afternoon. Not about the average human.
Is there a flash 9 for Linux, where?
Then lets take an example, the never ending story of the Nvidia driver.
When I installed ubuntu I got the official nvidia driver installed for free. The official driver in Ubuntu is the xorg nv driver, it's pretty bad (no 3d) but does the job until we get the better driver installed. To install the driver sanctioned by Nvida I have to add unofficial repository to Ubuntu and install it from that (or download/install from the nvidia site).
The official driver in Ubuntu is still the xorg driver and the driver blessed by Nvidia is in Ubuntus case unofficial even if coded by Nvidia. In Ubuntu and most other Linux dists the driver coded by Nvidia would be considered the "third party addon".
I see it the other way around, if I had to install some "binary blob" from a vendor (such as Apples iTunes) I would call it a third party addon. Amarok ships with my distribution of choice (Ubuntu) and I don't consider standard software in Ubuntu "third party addons". After all an iPod is just another hardware device that needs a driver to function correctly.
By your reasoning almost every driver (except those programmed/blessed by the hardware vendor) in Linux would be considered "third party addons". I can't really follow that reasoning.
In summary, everything thats ships with my distribution is official programs no matter who coded it, if I have to download and install something not in the repositories I would call that a third party addon.
If I where to use Windows or MacOS I would probably not have this view on the matter though as there are no official repositories to download programs from. On Windows and MacOS your view is correct.
No, it's only a third party addon if it doesn't ship with your distribution. I don't know if iPod software ships in the standard dists since I don't own an iPod though.